Keeping North Korea Negotiating Developments in Perspective
by Richardson ~ August 30th, 2007. Filed under: Diplomacy, Engagement, Six-Party Talks.Recently there have been reports on the possibility of a formal peace treaty between the U.S. and North Korea (currently there is an armistice but not a treaty), and the possibility of North Korea being removed from the from the list of states sponsoring terrorism maintained by the U.S. North Korean negotiators have toned down anti-American rhetoric (relatively) and have been generally described as cooperative.
Such developments, should they occur, would be touted by both Seoul and Washington as genuine progress on the North Korean issue, and some in both countries would content that it is proof that the DPRK will negotiate faithfully if only shown some respect and treated as an equal.
The litmus test for real progress, however, is how North Korea fulfills obligations under agreements. That standard has shown time and again that North Korea does not negotiate faithfully and cannot be trusted. The most recent agreement, the 13 February 2007 deal (DOC), is a case in point, where North Korea inserted a precondition not in the agreement, in the process completely destroyed the timeline, and just this week is apparently not fulfilling reporting requirements.
It is important to keep perspective, particularly when in some corners just getting North Korea to the negotiating table is considered to be some sort of victory or achievement to be proud of; neither are. Some would argue that these are necessary steps on the path to peace; they are wrong. The only measure of true success in dealing with the nuclear issue is verified fulfillment of existing agreements. Until those standards are met, the rest is essentially worthless.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:46 am
A peace treaty between the DPRK and the US would serve only to lend legitimacy to the KFR. The point of a peace treaty between two (actually one, and a half) countries that have never declared war is not at all clear. The “war,” such as it now exists, is between the United Nations, (another drain on the US) and the DPRK. So, if there is to be a peace treaty, the treaty will have to be between the UN and the DPRK. The US has nothing to discuss with the DPRK related to any peace treaty, even if it is all that is left of the UN mission in Korea.
Perhaps characterizing any treaty such as what the DPRK apparently wants between it and the US as a non-aggression pact would be more accurate. However, that too would be useless nonsense except to lend legitimacy to the KFR. There will be no aggression in either direction. KJI knows better than to attack the US directly because he knows that in that direction lies certain death. Yes, he might attack remaining US forces in Korea or stupidly try to go down in a blaze of glory. Simultaneously, the US is not going to attack the DPRK because, even though the military outcome would not be in doubt, all the US would get for attacking and “winning” would be more problems and expenses (in numerous senses) and absolutely nothing of value. Freedom for the serfs of the DPRK is too abstract to be considered and would not serve now as a legitimate reason for attacking.
The DPRK would be attacked by anyone only if there was something to gain from doing so. China is only country that might gain anything useful by an attack on the DPRK. However, China knows that only a relatively small part of the DPRK close to the existing border would be of any lasting value and will not attack because it wins no matter what happens - as long as there is no refugee problem to deal with. Russia would gain nothing unless it got all of the Korean Peninsula, which no one with an interest in the area would tolerate - not China, obviously not the ROK, not Japan, and not the US. Japan has no use for the DPRK for all of the same reasons as the US and additional reasons related to the colonial period. The ROK does not want the DPRK for a lot of excellent reasons related to integrating the two (expense, expense, expense, and social disruption), official pronouncements and public sentimentality to the contrary notwithstanding.
Everyone, particularly the emperor, nobles and serfs that inhabit the DPRK, should understand that the DPRK, as it stands now, is useful to anyone mostly as a source of slave labor and perhaps some port facilities. Slave labor is tolerable to some ROK and Chinese manufacturing enterprises and some Siberian forestry enterprises, but almost no one else. The “powerful and prosperous country” (actually weak and poor along with frequently stupidly arrogant - which all comes to childish) is now and will continue to be a resource drain for a long time to come, incapable of providing its population with current consumption goods (little things such as sufficient food and clothing, let alone luxuries such as decent housing and transportation) but a producer/seller of destructive hardware (some not very reliable) that is produced in many other places. In its present state, even if KJI were to offer it free to any taker, no one would be likely to have any interest in having the DPRK, except for the small parts previously mentioned that have very limited appeal, and would not be willing to fight for any of it. The DPRK/KFR has nothing to fear except its own collapse, which will not be the result of an attack that will not happen. No treaty will change that.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:19 am
My thoughts on some of that;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/2006/01/31/korean-reunification-who-wants-it/
For that reason alone, I agree (might kill more than liberate). If North Korea were found to be proliferating nuclear materials/nukes to say Al-Qaeda, I’d say attack.